Has Ghost Hunters Found Real Paranormal Evidence?

  • Thread starter Thread starter moejoe15
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Scifi
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the credibility of the television show Ghost Hunters and its claims of finding paranormal evidence. Participants express skepticism about the show's findings, question the methods used to gather evidence, and explore the broader implications of ghost claims and evidence in the context of scientific inquiry.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express skepticism about the credibility of Ghost Hunters, suggesting that the show often presents unconvincing evidence and may be staged.
  • Others compare Ghost Hunters unfavorably to Ghost Adventures, claiming it has become more sensationalized to compete.
  • A participant questions how one would determine acceptable evidence for ghost claims, noting that there seems to be no consensus on this issue.
  • There are discussions about alternative explanations for perceived paranormal experiences, including suggestions to consult various professionals like psychiatrists or contractors.
  • Some participants argue that while there may be unexplained phenomena, the evidence presented by ghost hunting shows is not scientifically acceptable.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of ball lightning as a phenomenon that lacks scientific evidence yet is accepted by the scientific community, drawing a parallel to ghost claims.
  • Participants discuss the challenges of demonstrating transient and unpredictable phenomena, suggesting that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, which is often lacking in ghost investigations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express skepticism about the findings of Ghost Hunters, but there is no consensus on what constitutes acceptable evidence for ghost claims. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the validity of paranormal evidence and the methods used to investigate such claims.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clear definitions of acceptable evidence for ghost claims and the unresolved nature of the phenomena discussed. The conversation reflects a range of opinions on the credibility of ghost hunting shows and the nature of evidence in paranormal investigations.

  • #31
harrylin said:
Certainly not (what was unclear about my writing??): My argument presupposes nothing (indeed, that would be highly unscientific); however I'm extremely skeptical about it. Currently my bet is that paranormal or supernatural are NOT the truth. But I'm open to change my mind about it. :-p

Just the same as good ole' Randi! The only difference between you and Randi id that he went out and raised a million bucks for the sole purpose of enticing someone to prove him wrong. Randi isn't a scientist himself, he has very good scientific training, and a relatively strong background, but he still relies on universities and laboratories to test the claimants of his prize. The JREF only does preliminary screening to same time and money. They have a few YouTube videos of some of the preliminary tests.

A lot of the claimants are scared off by a simple document they must sign. All of the tests are to be video taped and must be made available for public scrutiny regardless of the outcome. No matter how poorly they perform, the results are available for everyone to see. This caused quite a stink in the "woo-woo" community. A team of dowsers were the ones who first complained about this: they only wanted results released if they were successful. As a result Randi didn't allow them to be tested. I happen to think this is fair, but a lot of people don't. It is the largest sticking point for many psychics, crystal healers, etc...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
FlexGunship said:
... A lot of the claimants are scared off by a simple document they must sign. ...
I think that's part of it. Even more so, in my opinion, is the mutually agreed upon test protocol. Typically, a person makes some claim of "supernatural" ability, says they want to take the "Million Dollar Challenge", and they submit the http://www.randi.org/site/index.php/1m-challenge/challenge-application.html" . That's when negotiations begin on the test protocol, and shortly thereafter, when they discover that all the tricks they planned to use are already known and excluded, most applicants fade away.

This is sometimes followed by the applicant complaining that the test is unfair, that the JREF is cheating (?), that the million dollars doesn't really exist, and so on. The http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43" has quite a few examples.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
pantaz said:
This is sometimes followed by the applicant complaining that the test is unfair, that the JREF is cheating (?), that the million dollars doesn't really exist, and so on. The http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=43" has quite a few examples.

I love the claim that the money doesn't exist. As though that would somehow redeem them in the process.

"Why aren't you proving to the world that psychic powers exist? You could win a million dollars from the JREF."

"The money doesn't exist."

"Okay... the Nobel f**king prize?"

"Uh... money doesn't exist?"
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
61K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
16K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
8K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
10K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K